Over the weekend, Mitt Romney unveiled his choice of a Vice Presidential running mate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. The pick has been called everything from "bold" and "energizing" to "risky" and "out of the mainstream." But, no matter how you shake out politically, I think we can all agree Rep. Ryan is an articulate and principled public servant with a relatable family and background. While he's arguably the best choice Romney could have made, I couldn't help but notice the lack of foreign experience on the Republican ticket. So, while the economy will continue to be the number one issue on voter's minds, let us not forget that a hands-on understanding of global markets and practices is more important than ever in keeping America economically competitive.
Paul Ryan is primarily known within the Republican Party and American politics due to his Chairmanship of the House Budget Committee, and as the primary architect to the controversial "Path to Prosperity." Within the proposal, Ryan addresses virtually all aspects of fiscal policy spanning entitlements, defense spending, and corporate and individual tax rates (among others). And, while it tangentially mentions "competitiveness" in the context of our tax system, one key missing piece of his "Path" is growth. We can spend hours and hours debating how to achieve the necessary spending cuts to solve our running deficits and national debt crisis, but without a steeper growth trajectory we won't have the base needed to pay the bills or achieve a fiscally sustainable path forward.
Charting a path of sustainable growth in the 21st century is highly dependent on how we will compete in increasingly interdependent markets. And at a time when the U.S. still has all of the advantages to succeed in the global economy -- rule of law, free markets, political stability (not necessarily sanity!), and a domestic market twice as large as the next biggest economy. But interestingly, as highlighted by the Ryan pick, none of the four men on either presidential ticket has meaningful political or business experience abroad (no, a bank account in Switzerland doesn't count). Sure, Romney has traveled abroad and has some limited international business experience, and Obama/Biden have been exposed to international affairs via the Senate and their last three years in the West Wing, but none have actually spent meaningful time abroad during their adult lives. So how can we expect them to put together a realistic vision to compete globally?
Clearly to date, voters haven't demanded that a deep understanding of the world be a requirement of our top elected officials. I was often surprised during my dad's campaign to hear voters describe his experience as U.S. Ambassador to China as a negative. For some reason, they felt his close connection to Asia meant he wasn't "pro-American" enough. Many were more supportive of messages based on fear than opportunity.
And, unfortunately this international "experience gap" doesn't stop at the executive branch. For instance, only a select few in the U.S. Congress can point to time spent abroad, with many having been in office for decades. In fact, there are five currently serving Congressmen that have spent more than 40 consecutive years in Congress. To put that in perspective, all of these men would have been in office BEFORE Nixon formalized relations with China in 1972, at a time when we literally had $0 in trade with what now constitutes one of our largest economic relationships (in 2011 total trade was ~$500B). Simply put, we need more elected officials that understand the interconnectedness of the developed and developing world, emerging technologies, and America's place in the changing global landscape.
Romney's pick reinforces that international experience isn't a requirement to be a candidate for the top office in the world. It is simply not a priority for most voters. My hope, as a member of Generation X, is that as a country we begin to put more emphasis on electing leaders who understand the world beyond America's borders. It's the only path to a better economy, more jobs, and ultimately a fiscally balanced future.
Follow Abby Huntsman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/huntsmanabby
Sally Steenland: Religious Leaders Condemn Ryan-Romney Budget
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
And that was just six weeks ago.
Libs feel free to comment cause youve got nothing.
Bush 41 had traveled extensively. Clinton studied in England. Obama lived in Indonesia.
GWB? No experience whatsoever. Which made him an easy puppet for the small, but powerful lobbies that constantly hijack our foreign policy.
And why is it so easy for them? Because most voters (and many politicians) don't know, or don't care, or take the attitude "You're from that part of the world, you deal with it". Without realizing that their motives are not in OUR country's best interest.
As to growth? We can only hope that your Generation X does something about our ever lower birth rate! If not, that 'domestic market' advantage will soon be history ...
He is articulate I’ll give him that.
As for being a principled public servant how or what principles are you counting him as being such? Formulating a budget that removes safety nets for the most fragile citizens, gives more tax breaks to the 1%, supported Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff and supported President G.W. Bush’s wars and tax cuts?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-jack-abramoff_n_1768084.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
A relatable family and background? How many Americans finish their education on Government Social Security survivor benefits and then work to cut them for others following in such dire straits?
There´s a European Defense Conference held in Munich every February. Neither Mitt nor Solly Ryan
ever attended.
The only extended foreign service Mittens had was as a "chíckenhawk" Mormon missionary during Nam when the rest of our generation were doing two to four years of active service duty in Asia and Europe, thank you.
The Likud government in Israel wants to engage in a Pearl Harbour like air strike against Iranian
nuclear facilities with U.S. backing - and while in Israel, a not too bright Mittens said he´d back them up and recognize Jerusalem as the country´s capital. Puhhh leeeeassseeee'!
Cool down the rhetoric. The last thing the U.S. needs is to re-engage their full force- from Syria on the one side all the way through to the Afhan border to China. As a vet, l ask- with what Armed forces are you going to fight that one with. The NATO allies will definitely not be on board with that one.
But in office, politicians have to maintain links with overseas politicians, and relationships and therefore committments to each other are deeper if there is mutual understanding. In today's global world, the USA needs more of these strong links than just with its traditional 'special relationships' like the UK.
Where the US is perceived as just a wannabe bully boy by most countries, you wont get much in the way of cooperation. And this does count for a lot! A lot of economic activity gets thwarted by perceptions of a country, and not just at the top level. For example, as an english speaker, just having an Australian/Canadian/New Zealand passport can open a lot of doors for you around the world, where you would get stonewalling as a US passport holder. I have often had friends clarify that they were not US citizens when dealing with officials around the world. It improved attitudes immediately. Your country's foreign policies and knowledge actually affect you individually. This may be something that perhaps does not get the attention it deserves.
No, we can't all agree on that, right there with that one sentence you lost me. Yes he is articulate but no he is NOT principled, and I certainly can't relate to his rich-kid who inherited a multimillion dollar family business background or his background of spending his entire adult career either as a staffer for a member of Congress or as a member of Congress himself. And I wouldn't consider him a "public servant" either, he seems to be more of a servant for self-serving ideologies like Ayn Rand's that say that greed is good, more of a servant to the ideology of trickle-down economics, the Laffer Curve, and believing that cutting taxes on the wealthy will reduce the deficit. I did not inherit a multimillion dollar family business, I am not a member or staffer in Congress, and I do not find him relatable. But more than anything, I disagree about your statement that he is "principled". He is anything but. He claims his biggest principle is caring about the budget deficit but his own voting record in Congress shows that is the exact opposite of the truth. In reality, Paul Ryan is a professional liar and panderer without any principles.